...With this background of constitutional history and practice in mind, certain
conclusions may be drawn. First, the substantive grounds for impeachment are not limited
to criminal offenses. The phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was historical terminology
which encompassed breaches of public trust not amounting to crimes. On the other hand ... it is
fair to conclude that the Framers had in mind that only conduct which in some broad fashion
injures the interests of the country as a political entity be the basis for impeachment and
removal. The phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" should accordingly be construed
as referring only to acts which, like treason and bribery, undermine the integrity of
government...

It is our conclusion, in summary, that the grounds for impeachment are not limited to or
synonymous with crimes (indeed, acts constituting a crime may not be sufficient for impeachment
of an officeholder in all circumstances). Rather, we believe that acts which undermine the
integrity of government are appropriate grounds whether or not they happen to constitute offenses under
the general criminal law. In our view, the essential nexus to damaging the integrity of
government may be found in acts which constitute corruption in, or flagrant abuse of the
powers of, official position. It may also be found in acts which, without directly affecting
government processes, undermine that degree of public confidence in the probity of executive
and judicial officers that is essential to the effectiveness of government in a free society.
What specific acts meet this test will vary with circumstances, including the particular
position in government held by the person charged.

-Committee on Federal Legislation, Association of the Bar of the City of New York,
The Law of Presidential Impeachment, 29 The Record (1974) [emphasis added]

Compare the learned analysis of this distinguished committee to the statements of various
"experts" on the subject that have filled the popular media in the fall of 1998. The
problem, of course, is that most of the "experts" being quoted in 1998 lack the knowledge of English
constitutional history that is necessary for a proper understanding of what the phrase
"other high crimes and Misdemeanors" means.